State v. Lewis

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: May 9, 2018
• Docket: 2018-UP-199
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Tony Randal Lewis, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001407

Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-199 Submitted April 1, 2018 – Filed May 9, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brown, 360 S.C. 581, 586, 602 S.E.2d 392, 395 (2004) (entitling the accused to a directed verdict when the State fails to present evidence on a material element of the offense charged); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-470(A) (Supp. 2017) ("It is the duty of the offender to contact the sheriff in order to register . . . . If an offender fails to register . . . as required by this article, he must be punished as provided in subsection (B)."); State v. Scriven, 339 S.C. 333, 338, 529 S.E.2d 71, 73 (Ct. App. 2000) (determining statutory "provisions for sentence enhancement upon conviction for a second or greater offense . . . are not elements of the offense"); State v. Spratt, 383 S.C. 212, 213, 678 S.E.2d 266, 267 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit a prior uncounseled conviction resulting in a sentence of imprisonment from being used to enhance the punishment for a subsequent conviction.").1

AFFIRMED.2

HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1 To the extent Lewis argues the trial court should have remanded his case to the magistrate court, we find this argument unpreserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.